Study Bava Kamma folio 63A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
This line of reasoning is correct, because we expound each one of the listed items in the generalization, and detail, and generalization by itself. Each item is treated individually as representing a category, but the different items are not grouped together into one broad category. Since several
The Talmud rejects this: If so, let God write just one detail, i.e., animal, and that would have been enough to teach that animals are subject to double payment only if they transmit impurity through contact and carrying, so birds are excluded. Since the Torah listed several animals, birds are incl
The Talmud questions this assertion: Which individual animal should God have written? If God had written only “ox,” I would say that only an animal that is similar to an ox, in that it is sacrificed on the altar, yes, it is subject to double payment. But an animal that is not sacrificed on the alta
The Talmud responds: Say in answer to this question: If so, if the Torah had wished to limit double payment to cases where cattle, sheep, goats, or donkeys were stolen, let God write just “ox” and “donkey”; why do I need the verse to mention “sheep”? Conclude from it that the Torah intends to inclu
The Talmud asks further: But say that the verse mentions sheep in order to include only kosher birds, which are similar to the sheep listed in the verse, in that a carcass of these birds renders both the one who eats it and his garments ritually impure when it passes through his esophagus, as the